Friday letters: Laos via Vietnam, noise pollution, radical ideology

Bomblets from a cluster bomb hanging at the Visitor Centre of COPE, a Laos charity working with the Ministry of Health specializing in limbs for amputees, in Vientiane. The legacy of the secret bombing campaign the United States conducted in a sideshow to the Vietnam War and its enduring consequences will feature prominently during a visit by Barack Obama, the first ever by a U.S. president to Laos. (AFP / Getty Images)

Photo: ALISON MCCAULEY, Stringer

Cleaning up Laos

Regarding "Obama declares 'moral obligation' to clean up 80M bombs in Laos" (Page A13, Wednesday), once again, it appears that the American taxpayers are having to bear the burden for corporate inefficiency.

If, as the article states, there are 80 million unexploded bombs in Laos that need to be disposed of at a cost of $30 million a year for three years, the manufacturer of those bombs should be responsible for the cost of their clean-up, not the taxpayer.

It is apparent that with so many pieces of faulty ordnance, a lack of quality control was present in their manufacture. An examination of the contract between the government and the producer should reveal the acceptable level of bomb failure; surely not 80 million. The manufacturer should be fined and the cost of disposal recouped.

Kenneth Campbell, Cypress

Noisy open-air shows

Regarding "Open-air discord" (Page B1, Wednesday), here in no-zoning Houston, noise is especially relevant. I currently live next to a site that is an off/on location for a carnival. Back in the '90s, I lived by an after-hours club. Neither one was in business when I moved into these areas.

The after-hours club was a haven for underage drinking and drug use, but after-hours clubs are another issue for another time. Noise, I believe, should be contained inside the property owner's property lines.

Morgan Rauch, Houston

Sensitivity or madness?

Regarding "Colleges train new freshmen to be sensitive" (Page A10, Wednesday), it has been reported there are now sensitivity sessions on many college campuses to direct faculties and students on approved behavior and speech.

The examples are numerous: Princeton now encourages the use of vocabulary that is more gender-neutral.

Today's winner is Clark University in Worcester, Mass., stating "you guys" is not to be used because it could be interpreted as non-inclusive of women.

Has anyone considered that this effort has the counterproductive result of instructing individuals to discover multiple diverse reasons to feel offended? Or that it is beginning to stifle innocent spontaneous conversation and interaction between us all? Have we gone mad? Oops. Is that a banned word?

Beverly Chadd, Houston

Radical ideology policy

Regarding "Identity politics is ruining national life" (Page A13, Tuesday), David Brooks' column suggests that this is a recent phenomenon. In fact, moderate Republicans have pandered for decades to the "us against them" radical right.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, their cynical strategy has resulted in the takeover of their party by the radical right to which they pandered. Thus, what was once merely cynical lip service to a radical ideology has morphed into a mainstream party's policy. This is what is different.

The Republicans have made this bed, and now they must lie in it. How long remains to be seen.